Australia

Queensland – the next Australian state to legalise Assisted Dying?

A parliamentary committee has recommended that the Australian state of Queensland should legalise voluntary assisted dying for adults with an advanced terminal illness.

Currently over one-third of Australians have, (or shortly will have), access to a form of assisted dying since the state of Victoria passed its voluntary assisted dying law in 2017, followed by Western Australia in 2019. If Queensland follows, this would give the option of an assisted death to well over half (57%) of Australians.

 The Queensland report recommends that any assisted dying legislation there should be limited to:

  • Adults over 18
  • Queensland residents
  • Those ‘having an advanced and progressive terminal, chronic or neurodegenerative medical condition that cannot be alleviated in a manner acceptable to the person, and that the condition will cause death.’
  • People with ‘decision-making capacity’.

Any conversation about the possibility of an assisted death would have to be instigated by the person wishing to die. Counselling should be available to anyone who requests it, but should not be compulsory, as some submissions to the enquiry had advocated.

Importantly the report recommends that the legislation should not be limited to a ‘precise timeframe for a person’s anticipated date of death … due to the complex, subjective and unpredictable nature of the prognosis of terminal illness.’ This follows from the Canadian model, which was cited in evidence to the enquiry.  

Another thoughtful recommendation is that ‘the coordinating practitioner may determine whether self-administration of the substance or administration by the practitioner is the method best suited to the patient.’ It would permit the lethal substance to be provided intravenously, controlled either by the patient or by the doctor. This overcomes one of the problems with oral methods used in Oregon and other US states. Experience from the organisation Lifecircle in Switzerland, indicates that the Intravenous method is the quickest and most reliable, as their IV method (in which the client opens the cannula) results in a person falling asleep within thirty seconds and dying peacefully within four minutes. This recommendation again follows the example of Canada.

Mental illness is a question that often comes up in assisted dying debates. The report recommends that provided the person has the mental capacity to make a life-ending decision, any mental illness itself should not prevent an otherwise valid request for an assisted death.

Despite the careful analysis demonstrated in the report, an Australian newspaper, The Age, points out that political focus in Queensland is rightly concentrated on tackling the Covid-19 crisis. It is currently unclear when legislation will be proposed.

Phil Cheatle the Lead Campaign Commentator for My Death, My Decision said:

‘The Queensland report is encouraging as it pays close attention to important nuances of the assisted dying debate and takes on board experience from Victoria and Canada. It recommends following Canada in not limiting assisted dying to a strict prognosis time limit such as 6 months and in permitting intravenous delivery. These overcome two serious criticisms of the US/Oregon approach and we strongly endorse Queensland’s decision to avoid them.’

Read more

Dr David Goodall (104) travels from Australia for a Good Death in Switzerland

There has been much reporting of the death of 104 year old Dr David Goodall, who ended his life at Lifecircle in Switzerland on 10th May 2018. The BBC include a video extract from his last press conference in an article on their website.

Dr Goodall was a British ecologist and botanist who was not terminally ill, but had a deteriorating quality of life due to poor health. He lived and worked in Australia but had to fly to Switzerland in order to have the medically assisted death he wished for. The Daily Mail article describes how Dr Goodall, an honorary research associate at Perth’s Edith Cowan University, made international headlines in 2016 when he was declared unfit to be on campus over concerns about his safety, including his ability to commute. Scientists around the world supported him to get the decision reversed. In another article the BBC quoted a friend, Carole O’Neill, who explained how these events had affected Dr Goodall. He was forced to work in a location closer to home, apart from his colleagues and friends. At a similar time his deteriorating health also meant he had to give up driving and performing in theatre. He was, of course, most fortunate still to be able to enjoy doing these things up until the age of 102! Mrs O’Neill went on to explain that the events of 2016 marked the beginning of him not being happy anymore. “He’s an independent man. He doesn’t want people around him all the time, a stranger acting as a carer. He doesn’t want that. He wants to have intelligent conversation and still be able to do the same things like catching the bus into town.”

The Guardian reports that he had attempted suicide about two months ago after suffering a fall. This shows the difficulties even the best educated people can face when trying to end their lives without medical assistance. Those who argue that the assisted dying law doesn’t need to be changed, as suicide is no longer a crime and people can end their lives if they wish, totally miss the point about how difficult it is for people to achieve this peacefully and unaided, at the time when they rationally decide that it is the best option. Dr Goodall’s doctors in Australia are reported as saying “he’s talking about ending his life, there’s nothing much wrong with him, so therefore he’s a risk to himself.” This apparently led them to consider keeping him in hospital against his will, and attempting to prevent him from travelling abroad. Not exactly the kind of patient-centred care he would have hoped for. Wouldn’t it have been better for his doctors to be able to accept and assist in what appears to be a very rational and well thought out end-of-life decision?

Cases such as this present a real dilemma for those who believe that medically assisted dying should be restricted to those who are deemed “terminally ill” in the sense of having a life expectancy of six months or less. What do they propose should be done for someone like Dr Goodall? Deny him the good death he quite rationally seeks? Why?

Dr Goodall was very clear about what a good death meant to him. The Daily Mail article reports him saying:

“I am 104 years old so I haven’t got much time left anyway. I might as well not have [my health] getting worse and worse, making me unhappy as it goes.”

From the information available it seems that Dr Goodall’s decision is a classic case of someone who has decided that their life is complete, and who finds their incurably deteriorating health has made their quality of life unacceptable. He rationally decided that a medically assisted death was his best option. MDMD support his decision and thank him, and his family and friends, for publicising his situation so widely. They have done much to stimulate the debate on future end-of-life care and how we should support people in their choices.

From MDMD’s standpoint, it seems totally unacceptable that someone should need to embark on such a long journey in order to have what for them is a good death. Not only that, if he, and others who share his end of life wishes, knew that their good death option was available in their home country, without the need for an arduous journey, they might delay their life ending decision for a little longer; until they decide to go to their nearest Good Death Centre perhaps?

Read more

Victoria, Australia law passes the upper house

Excellent news from Australia. Further to our previous report, the upper house of the Australian state of Victoria has passed a Voluntary Assisted Dying bill. The bill passed by 22 to 18 after a 28 hour sitting. The progress is reported in this Guardian article.

The debate in the upper house caused some amendments to the original bill, in particular, one which tightened the life-expectancy requirement from 12 months to 6 months unless the patient is suffering a neurodegenerative illness such as motor neuron disease. Although this is more restrictive than MDMD would like to see, as it is unlikely to be applicable to early stage dementia patients who would wish to end their lives while they still have the mental capacity to do so, this is a welcome step forward beyond the rigid six-month life expectancy criterion used by states such as Oregon in USA, and proposed for the UK in September 2015. The changes to the Victoria bill still need to be ratified by the lower house, but this is reported to be a formality which will be completed next week.

The Guardian article cautions “The law comes into operation in June 2019. … The next state election is due in November next year and already opponents are saying they will campaign to have the law repealed before it ever commences.” Although the battle is not yet over, very significant progress has been made.

Looking at how and why such progress came about in Victoria, the Guardian article identifies the following factors in its interviews with those involved in the debate there:

  • The process was sponsored by the Victoria government, rather than it being a private members’ bill. This gave it significant additional resources and authority.
  • The Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews, supported the Bill. Andrews, a Catholic, changed his mind on assisted dying after his father died of cancer last year.
  • There was a properly informed debate. The facts were used to overcome the unfounded fears and uncertainties spread by those opposed to the bill.

How long will we, in the UK, have to wait until we have a government in tune with the electorate on this issue? Perhaps when we have a prime minister who has witnessed at first hand the demise of a close relative with dementia, when the person’s rational requests for a medically assisted death are refused, or when the person takes their own life in desperation, like Sir Nicholas Wall did earlier this year. Dementia is now the leading cause of death in England and Wales. Many more die with it rather than of it. Dementia sufferers who seek a medically assisted death can obtain one, provided they act while they still have the mental capacity to make a life ending decision. However, they can only do this by going through the arduous process of arranging it in Switzerland. A recent report shows how difficult this process is.

Read more

Progress in Victoria, Australia

MDMD is pleased to see that an assisted dying bill in Victoria is making good progress, having passed a vote in the lower house by 47 to 37. The Bill still needs to pass a vote in the upper house.

See this BBC report, for example. More details are provided in the Dignity in Dying news story.

While the bill is a significant step forward, it is restricted to the “terminally ill”. In the case of Victoria, this is defined as being diagnosed with an incurable disease, illness or medical condition that is expected to cause death within 12 months. It is interesting that Victoria chooses a 12 month condition rather than the 6 months used in US states, or the “reasonably foreseeable” death, with unspecified time duration, used in Canada. Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium do not have a time limit in their assisted dying legislation.

The bill proposed for the UK and rejected by the House of Commons in September 2015 followed the Oregon model and was restricted to those with a life expectancy of 6 months or less.

Which time limit, (if any), should be used? Why should terminally ill people in the UK whose life expectancy is between 6 and 12 months be denied the opportunities that those in Victoria may soon have? MDMD would like to see clarification on this from those, like Dignity in Dying, who both welcome the developments in Victoria, but seek to restrict assisted dying in the UK to those who are within 6 months of dying. It they publish explanations of their position, we will gladly link to them here.

From the MDMD perspective, we consider any time limit to be arbitrary, and at best a first step towards a more inclusive criterion. Perhaps this is necessary caution. But time limits are impossible for doctors to accurately predict and unfairly exclude people who may have to suffer for many years – such as Tony Nicklinson, Omid, and dementia sufferers like Alex Pandolfo.

Read more